Initially endorsed as an antiosteoporotic agent, denosumab ‒ human monoclonal antibody inhibiting the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL)‒ has currently shown an anticancer potential, rationalizing its exploitation in oncology. A prerequisite for leveraging denosumab in oncology is a favorable safety profile. The present review provides an overview of the adverse events of denosumab in oncology, with a focus on hypocalcemia, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femoral fracture(s), post-denosumab vertebral fractures, increased risk of infections, and excess of second primary cancer. Representative studies addressing the safety and efficacy of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in oncology are summarized. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/skf38393-hcl.html Critical gaps in the literature concerning the safety of denosumab in oncology are highlighted as opposed to plenty of available safety data on denosumab as an antiosteoporotic agent. Despite the generally acceptable safety profile of denosumab in oncology, many issues remain unresolved. Further research is mandatory to counteract current challenges, namely (i) validation of risk factors for adverse events; (ii) elucidation of the pathophysiology of the adverse events in search of actionable molecular pathways; (iii) illumination of the association of denosumab with increased risk of infections and/or second primary cancer; (iv) establishment of optimal diagnostic, and therapeutic protocols. Despite the generally acceptable safety profile of denosumab in oncology, many issues remain unresolved. Further research is mandatory to counteract current challenges, namely (i) validation of risk factors for adverse events; (ii) elucidation of the pathophysiology of the adverse events in search of actionable molecular pathways; (iii) illumination of the association of denosumab with increased risk of infections and/or second primary cancer; (iv) establishment of optimal diagnostic, and therapeutic protocols.The abolition of the expertise procedure for outpatient psychotherapy - A reduction of quality in the psychotherapy? Abstract.Objectives This article investigates whether or not the abolishment of the expertise procedure for an outpatient psychotherapy is a reliable quality feature; and whether or not the elimination of this procedure results in a reduction of quality in outpatient psychotherapy. Methods We conducted a literature research that considered articles written between the years 2000 and 2020 dealing with the expertise procedure as a quality standard of outpatient psychotherapy. In order to discuss the different views of the cited authors, we also refer to further literature. Results The expertise procedure is not a reliable quality feature of outpatient psychotherapy. The idea that abolishing the expertise procedure results in a reduction of quality in outpatient psychotherapy is not confirmed by the studies summarized. The 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for valvular heart disease included changes in the definition of severe aortic stenosis (AS). We wanted to evaluate its influence on management decisions in asymptomatic patients with moderate-severe AS. We reclassified the AS severity of the participants of the PRIMID-AS study (Prognostic Importance of Microvascular Dysfunction in Asymptomatic Patients With AS), using the 2017 guidelines, determined their risk of reaching a clinical end point (valve replacement for symptoms, hospitalization, or cardiovascular death) and evaluated the prognostic value of aortic valve calcium score and biomarkers. Patients underwent echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, and biomarker assessment. Of the 174 participants, 45% (56/124) classified as severe AS were reclassified as moderate AS. This reclassified group was similar to the original moderate group in clinical characteristics, gradients, calcium scores, and remodeling pay 2017 guidelines. This group had an intermediate risk of reaching the primary end point. Exercise testing, multimodality imaging, and lower mean pressure gradient threshold of 31 mm Hg may improve risk stratification. Registration URL https//www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01658345. Reclassification of asymptomatic severe AS into moderate AS was common using the European Society of Cardiology 2017 guidelines. This group had an intermediate risk of reaching the primary end point. Exercise testing, multimodality imaging, and lower mean pressure gradient threshold of 31 mm Hg may improve risk stratification. Registration URL https//www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01658345. To understand assumptions about and approaches to interstitial lung disease (ILD), including those of the progressive phenotype (progressive fibrosing ILD), this multinational survey assessed physicians' attitudes toward, knowledge of, and management strategies for progressive fibrosing ILD. This internet-based survey of physicians was conducted between November 2018 and February 2019. Practical management strategies for progressive fibrosing ILD, and current approaches to the assessment and treatment of ILD, were compared between countries/regions (Japan vs. United States and European Union) and specialties (pulmonologists vs. rheumatologists). The survey was completed by 574 respondents. Compared with Western countries, the progressive fibrosing phenotype concept was not widely understood by Japanese respondents, with no notable differences in the understanding of this phenotype between pulmonologists and rheumatologists. Across all regions, pulmonary function tests, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide assessments, and pulse oximeter measurements were commonly performed at intervals of ≤6 months. In general, physicians in the United States and European Union preferred physiologic approaches for follow-up, while those in Japan preferred imaging and blood monitoring. Compared with rheumatologists, pulmonologists performed more frequent monitoring of autoimmune ILDs, and the differences between specialties were most pronounced in Japan. Regional differences in treatment approaches were observed, probably reflecting the local availability of agents and healthcare environments. Awareness and management of progressive fibrosing ILD varied between specialties and regions, highlighting an unmet need for standardized diagnosis, treatment guidelines, and specialist education in this area. Awareness and management of progressive fibrosing ILD varied between specialties and regions, highlighting an unmet need for standardized diagnosis, treatment guidelines, and specialist education in this area.